How could the serpent of Eden talk?

We are not told how the serpent could talk so we can only speculate, but here are some ideas:

The serpent is described as being “more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made” (Gen 3:1). This may indicate a higher level of intellect than normal animals. So one possibility is that God created the serpent with the ability to speak – an ability that was removed by the curse.

It is possible that God gave the serpent the power to talk temporarily, like Balaam’s donkey (Num 22:28). Neither snakes nor donkeys have the right vocal chords for human speech, let alone the brain capacity for complex thought, but this would not prevent God making it appear as though the serpent was talking.

We should also consider the possibilty that Genesis 3 is not a literal account. If this is the case then there is no need to speculate about how the serpent could talk.

Related

7 Responses to How could the serpent of Eden talk?

In your 3rd option to the answer to ” How could the serpent of Eden talk?” you say that there is a possibility that Genesis 3 is not a literal account. If it is not a literal account, how then would we classifty it? spiritual? as a fable? as an ideology or maybe just as a theory? I am not sure of how else to take Genesis 3. Perhaps you could shed a little light on this please: the other ways of understanding Gensis 3. Many thanks

Dear Sarah,
Thank you for your response. It is a reasonable question. There are a number of ways one might consider the story of Eden to be a non-literal account. For example, one might consider it a historical event (e.g. God reveals himself to Adam and Eve) that has been written with various mythic or hyperbolic elements (e.g. a talking snake that represents the human propensity to disobey). Or, one might consider it an allegory or fable describing, say, the moment when mankind (“Adam”) came to a spiritual awareness and then lost its innocence by attaining a knowledge of good and evil.

The point to stress is that we do not get to just pick and choose the genre of the story to best suit our preconceptions. For example, we might find the concept of a talking serpent problematic but that, of itself, would not justify us taking the story to be non-literal. The important question is what did the author intend when he/she wrote Genesis (or, more properly, what did God intend when he inspired the author to write Genesis).

Dear Sarah,
Thank you for your response.
It is a reasonable question. There are a number of ways one might consider the
story of Eden to be a non-literal account. For example, one might consider it a
historical event (e.g. God reveals himself to Adam and Eve) that has been
written with various mythic or hyperbolic elements (e.g. a talking snake that
represents the human propensity to disobey). Or, one might consider it an
allegory or fable describing, say, the moment when mankind (“Adam”) came to a
spiritual awareness and then lost its innocence by attaining a knowledge of good
and evil.

The point to stress is that we do not get to
just pick and choose the genre of the story to best suit our preconceptions. For
example, we might find the concept of a talking serpent problematic but that, of
itself, would not justify us taking the story to be non-literal. The important
question is what did the author intend when he/she wrote Genesis (or, more
properly, what did God intend when he inspired the author to write Genesis).

the time of eden was quite a different time than ours, adam and eve were clothed with Gods glory, could see into heaven, God walked with them here. i believe the world was such a different place in firstly there was no curse. when that devil tried to get the authority adam had he couldnt possess adam and had to find another way. he probably tried a lot of creatures who denied him the right in ther bodies, the snake then was the only one who gave his authority up, the act of speaking would then have been a supernatural one coming from the devil inside. but i believe that its quite a litteral account. thats why God cursed the snake afterwards ( cause the snake gave authority away)

Dear c0d1,
Thank you for your response. As I noted in the main answer, we are not told so I required to speculate. Your suggested answer, whilst interesting and imaginative, is also speculative – indeed it builds speculation on speculation. Genesis 3 never mentions the devil or any other supernatural possessing the snake; it does not mention the devil at all. Genesis 3 does not mention a time when the snake was not able to take or when it was anyway different from when first presented. Genesis 3 does not mention that animals have authority over their bodies, in the way you imply, or that they have a choice whether to give up that authority. So one would want a lot more evidence before accepting the scenario you describe.
Thanks
Tom

Dear c0d1,
Thank you for your response. As I noted in the main answer, we are
not told so I required to speculate. Your suggested answer, whilst interesting
and imaginative, is also speculative – indeed it builds speculation on
speculation. Genesis 3 never mentions the devil or any other supernatural
possessing the snake; it does not mention the devil at all. Genesis 3 does not
mention a time when the snake was not able to take or when it was anyway
different from when first presented. Genesis 3 does not mention that animals
have authority over their bodies, in the way you imply, or that they have a
choice whether to give up that authority. So one would want a lot more evidence
before accepting the scenario you describe.
Thanks
Tom